53%!

Comments

204 Responses

The Poll has already been thoroughly trashed and well polling a 1001 and one people does not in the least state exactly what the entire population in the country thinks…As an example, that 60% of the people now approve of Obama when 11,600 disputed that Poll on a more accurate website…So I do not give this poll any creditablity,,but no harm in touting it I guess…you gotta hope for something…New York will Vote based on how much money it will bring in…and to whom it brings it…so because Cuomo touts it, means only that….

Eddie s, do you even know how representative sampling works? 1001 people can often be a seriously robust sample size. That representative sampling strategies don’t fit in with your vision of how polls SHOULD work doesn’t matter – they DO work.

Whoa there Ms. Post–if you are going to call me out (albeit in my anonymity) please don’t distort my position.

I have repeatedly said that passage of a gay marriage bill wouldn’t ruffle my feathers. My repeated objections to the process have been the phony argument that it is a Constituitonal right (it isn’t, hence the legislative battles), the absurd position that since current marriages wouldn’t be impacted those people had no right to take a poaition, and yes, the Jeffrey wing of the gay lobby’s refusal to consider any compromise such as making ALL join in civil unions, and replacing the word “marriage” with “civil union”.

There are many different voices on this blog who are or seem to be gay, and they have what appear to be different views–I consider Reep for instance to be thoughtful and non-doctrinaire vs. Jeffrey and hellmolly, for example. Why does anyone raising questions get lumped together?

And finally, interesting juxtaposition in your post between “marriage equality” and “straight marriage”. Language is a funny thing, isn’t it?

Elmer…there is nothing “funny” about this. You continue to call us out because we will not support some half baked proposition that ALL people will accept civil unions if only gay people would change their minds and adopt that viewpoint. Again, answer this question if you can, will the social conservatives in this country accept such a proposition? I fail to understand why, if you have no problem with the concept of gay marriage, that you seem hell bent that gays and lesbians should take up the banner of civil unions for all. You are actually preaching to the choir. Have you made such assertions on the Tea Party blog? I wonder what response you would get. Sorry to say that I do not trust your argument or your motives. Essentially you are saying to the gay community just accept the second class unworkable civil unionapproach and SOME DAY, we will all have civil unions. Sorry the only “doctrinaire” posts I see on here seems to be by you, cc and Albert. I will not speak for hellomolly but I have not seen one post where anyone has said that civil unions for all is not a lovely concept, but how realistic do you really think that is? Please, by all means, go to Bill Claydons blog and propose that and let’s see what they say. I am sure the responses will be far more base than anything hellomolly or I have posted. And by the way, stop whining!! You made your arguments and people on here disagreed with you. Get over it already!!!

One more thing Elmer…here is the latest anti-gay salvo from our republican “friends” in congress, the same people you seem to think rejoice at the idea of doing away with civil marriage and replacing it with civil unions for all. They are now trying to stonewall the repeal of DADT and are making sure that the military does not perform same sex marriages, going so far as to bar military chaplains, no matter how they feel about the issue, from performing these marriages. The question becomes, do you really think they are interested in leveling the playing field with civil unions for all? http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/05/26/House_Passes_Defense_Bill_with_Antigay_Amendments/

If only one can get past a magic number (in this case, a 50 % or more majority) then an issue is solved! Such a relief.

Perhaps if 50% of physicists choose to accept the claims of the creationists and Intelligent Design crowd, then Darwin, Einstein, and Big Bang cosmology were wrong all along. Perhaps, if 50% of the nation decided that it were so then the Earth must in fact be only 6000 years old, Man was indeed created from magic dust, and the sun revolves around the Earth after all, and that Galileo was correct to retract his claim that he saw the evidence with his own two eyes. The majority, after all, decided.

In “53%!” it’s the ‘might makes right’ argument applied to ethics. And this from the part of the political spectrum that once eschewed such concepts when seen for what they were – blatant mob rule and subjective reasoning applied to crucial philosophical matters.

Perhaps the Progressive Left will now embrace intellectual honesty and will apologize to the bigots of the early and mid twentieth century who persistently justified their bigotries (mixed marriage, equal protection, etc.) by employing precisely the same argument. Perhaps the Left will now say “well, if the majority believed it to be so….”.

I’ll hold my breath.

Numbers do not make an argument. misrepresentation does not make a case.

At no point, as far as can be told, has anyone who has voiced opposition to gay marriage here claimed that marriage equality is “a threat to straight marriage” or that it would “water down the significance of {your] unions”. These are, apparently, a concern for the Left.

The question of ‘watering down’ has been directed AT opponents of gay marriage, as if such is the be all and end all final argument. Speaking only for myself, i consider the question of supposed ‘watering down’ irrelevant to any discussion of gay marriage.

However, we must take Ms. Post at her word in the discussion. Will Ms. Post stand by her own words and declare the debate over gay marriage over, at least on her blog?

Will she declare the topic off limits, even to herself? Will supporters of gay marriage raise the flag, declare victory, and take the posters, pamphlets, legal battles, and rhetoric home?

I doubt it.

Apparently the real message to elmer, albert j, and myself as delivered by Ms. Post (and to any who might deign to disagree w Ms. Post) is that opponents of gay marriage are to cease and desist any claim to truth and cease any and all further argument, simply because 53% currently disagree. If the numbers in a poll indicate support (notoriously imprecise though polls tend to be) how dare anyone challenge basic assumptions.

Echoes of mid twentieth rural South Carolina can be heard.

No doubt Ms. Post would agree that ‘civil rights’ (when objectively and precisely defined) are neither created nor eliminated by vote. If this were so, the events of the fifties and sixties would have been very different. Civil authority does not magically create rights, nor eliminate them, any more than it can magically justify inarticulately made false arguments. Civil authority does, however, recognize already existing rights.

supporters of gay marriage have not yet made a cohesive legal argument as to how any legally recognized ‘rights’ of theirs are currently violated. as of yet they have also failed in any meaningful way to articulate the nature of the supposed ‘rights’ they claim the opposition is fighting against.

Apparently the point is moot, however. Ms. Post has by her own words declared her fight over. No more on this blog will the community, or our detractors, see a discussion on gay marriage.

Au contraire–I never said the fight was over. I know it’s not. I said I’m no longer going to entertain the separate but equal, settle for civil unions arguments anymore. How many times do we have to around that tree? It doesn’t work. It’s not what we want. And, there’s no reason why we should be afforded the same rights, responsibilities, and yes, headaches, that come with marriage. Considering that less and less straight people are getting married–I would think our desire to tie the knot would be welcomed as a way to strengthen the institution. And don’t hold your breath–otherwise you won’t be able to say anything.

Libby, you are absolutely entitled to advocate for whatever you wantand frm your own conclusions. However, that doesn’t mean what you don’t want “doesn’t work”, couldn’t work or will not provide the exact same rights, responsibilities and possibly headaches that are currently afforded through marriage.

Those elements would all depend on how a workable civil union statute might be created.

The separate but equal civil unions can never work as long as DOMA is the law of the land. Issues such as whether someone can sponsor annon-resident(i.e., alien) spouse, even in the states where gay marriage is legal, is still problematic.

And the 50% threshold in the survey was simply that, a landmark, but hardly THE answer. But it IS how things are measured, even in mundane issues of commerce: at what point do 50% of the households have a TV or cellphone or computer USUALLY means that people will continue to by TVs, cellphones and computers, at least until the next technology comes along.

Interracial marriage at the time Barack Obama’s parents were married was below 20%. When Loving v. Virginia was decided by the SCOTUS, repealing the anti-miscegenation laws in about 15 states, the percentage was about 30%. Now it’s around 80% or more. At the point it hit 50%, it was important, but not the end.

libby: at no point have i myself ever made the argument for ‘separate but equal’ via distinct civil unions. i’ve argued that marriage in and of itself is beyond the authority of the government to intervene in or to sanction. thus my advocacy for universal civil protections, which would protect OUR rights as well as those of the religiously minded, and would provide equal legal status to straight AND gay relationships. but neither have the supporters of marriage made the case that civil unions are not identical to marriage in their legal protections (outside of federal protections, of which NY has no say in).

you are certainly within your rights, since this is your blog, to deny anyone from making a civil union argument, despite the fact that closing that avenue of discussion is at the least disingenuous and at worst shows a desire to cut of critical analysis. it is your prerogative, however.

as for the time for that argument being over since finally having breached the majority opinion mark, truth is not up to popular vote. if it were, gays and lesbians might still be legally designated as criminals, subject to all manner of legally backed harassment, and enduring all manner of censorship of our voices. these are not currently problems we face precisely because discourse continued and all manner of inquiry was open for discussion. today our last hurdle of consequence (on the legal, not the social issues) is protections of our relationship privileges and responsibilities.

if we as a community do not begin to grasp (and then undo) the damage we are doing to the public’s understanding of fundamental constitutional questions, history will not view us as acting to achieve civil protections, but as destroyers of constitutional precepts. no manner of goodwill on our part, and no manner of honest intent will change that fact.

libby; if i’m to understand your position re # 8 and closing off debate on civil union, and your awareness that the fight is far from over (#9), i can only gather that you intend to continue arguing for gay marriage and consider any counter argument that does not summarily reject the idea or the validity of civil union as eliminated from the discussion.

interesting.

how easy that must then be for the pro gay marriage side.

constitutional arguments eliminated, arguments for legal protections eliminated. all that remains are those arguments on the pro gay marriage side which necessarily entail a simple ‘with us or against us’ moral reasoning.

interesting.

if i’m to further understand things, opponents of gay marriage are thus obliged to make a moral argument, rather than a legal one, for the inappropriateness of gov’t sanctioned gay marriage? does this mean that my position that the pro gay marriage side has been arguing for societal ‘acceptance’ all along, and merely using legal protections as a pretext to influence public opinion is entirely correct?

roger green: how right you are regarding DOMA. that travesty of justice and law is a singular homing missile aimed at destroying our legal protections, and also any means of social acceptance. if DOMA gets to the high court (and it will) and if it is upheld (a complete question mark), not just civil protections of our agreements and responsibilities as gay couples are at stake.

Our community has not yet grasped the implications of DOMA. either have DOMA’s supporters.

Unfortunately we are playing into the hands of the less than savory element of the anti gay marriage crowd. in our pursuit of an irrational, grossly ill defined thing called ‘gay marriage’ we are blurring the distinctions between civil law and social tolerance. if we continue, we will lose the opportunity for both.

libby: i’m well aware of the actions of the anti gay marriage republicans. DOMA is their crowning achievement. It is also the key to unmasking the hypocrisy and irrationality of the arguments of the genuine homophobes regarding legal protections for our civil arrangements and responsibilities. pointing out irrational or unethical actions by one individual or group, however, does not mitigate against those of others. attempting to force acceptance of our relationships, by writing into law legal protections that would then be redundant and/or superfluous, are still acts of thuggery. it presupposes that the mechanisms of the State are an appropriate means of affecting change in cultural norms or societal standards.

it assumes that ‘forcing’ an institution to embrace a moral premise is somehow noble. the ends do not justify the means, ever. in this case the ends are a culture which recognizes, both legally and morally, that gay relationships are identical to straight ones. the means are to force the ‘legal’ part, and expect or hope that the ‘moral’ will eventually come. moral approval, recognition, or tolerance rammed through via force of law is not a noble act, nor an appropriate goal. it is the goal and the act of thugs, bullies, and potential tyrants.

doing so in the name of the moral good of tolerance or fairness is an ugly inversion of morality.

If we were to follow your logic, the African-American community would not have voting rights–in fact, we still might have slavery. Changing the law, is at times, the only way to change society. Changing the law shows those who fear change that the results aren’t as bad as they thought they would be.

It’s no wonder that more Americans are supporting gay marriage, now that the instituion of marriage is practically dead, but I agree with Libby. The same arguement against gay marriage are virtually identical to the same arguements against inter-racial marriage made a generation or two ago. cchashadenough’s logic is similarly convoluted, as she or he is basically saying we have to be intolerant because some people in our society may be offended if we become more tolerant.

And Libby is absolutely correct. If we left it up to the voters of the deep south in the 1950s, schools would have remained segregated, voting rights limited, and interracial marriage verbooten. We need leaders because sometimes the great masses of humanity stumbling through history need to be led.

Besides, its obvious that support for same sex marriage is going up, now at(arguably) 53%. Given a few more years…and support will clearly and undoubtedly be over the 50% mark. So if the majority support it / will come to support it in the near future, and it is the moral thing to do, then how can it be wrong?

Moral leadership is and must be provided through persuasion, not by act of law. acts of law are not persuasive argument, they are acts of force.

when we accept the premise that government, regardless of the motive, may use acts of force against citizens who have committed no crime, for the purpose of affecting social behavior, or for any reason, we concede to the rule of brute force — of might makes right.

when we concede to the moral premise that a majority may act with force against a legally disarmed minority of individuals, or more importantly legally disarmed individuals, be it by vote OR by legislation, we have lost any claim that such acts are morally justifiable.

this is the moral premise of a dictatorship, not a republic. the might makes right principle was held by the anti civil rights folk in the 50s and 60s. this was precisely why i made the analogy.

Acting on the premise that it is the right and responsibility of gov’t to act against its citizens in this manner, particularly on grounds of ‘tolerance and fairness’, will not make legislation derived from it noble — nor are individuals who support such a moral premise noble.

individuals who hold such a premise are equally as repugnant as the folk who wielded flaming crosses and jim crow laws.

holding up the moral premise of might makes right in the name of tolerance and fairness is a moral inversion. it is moral treason against the concept of civil rights.

the bulk of the racial minority population know this. this is precisely why they have been so repulsed by our community drawing historical and ethical comparisons between 60s era civil rights activism and the activism of the gay community and calling our causes civil rights issues.

it is no accident, nor is it illogical, that individuals and groups belonging to racial minorities have on the whole been the most adamantly opposed to gay marriage — and the most vocal.

Re; 18 + 19: let’s not forget that many within the broader sixties era activists WERE thugs. this particularly the case with students who seized control of college campuses by force in the name of free speech and the radical racial activists who killed police and terrorized civilians, screaming for the blood of ‘whitey’ in the name of racial tolerance.

the rhetoric and the actions of thugs who would destroy the concept of law and civil liberties in the name of justice have not changed.

the veneer of nostalgic respectability we’ve given this moral treason, and those who held it, has merely convoluted, distorted, and transformed the concepts of ‘rights’.

Gay marriage does not affect religious anyone other than the couple, nor negatively affect liberties? Tell that to Illinois and catholic charities. this is likely just the beginning. can you explain the justice, tolerance, or fairness in this to these kids and those who might have been their foster or adoptive parents.

No one but gay couples affected by gay marriage? tell that to Illinois and California, and catholic charities. explain to these children and those who might have become foster or adoptive parents how this is justice, tolerance, or fairness.

cc…sorry to say that your argument is very flawed and exemplifies the reason Ayn Rand and her objectivist viewpoint has been relegated to the fringes. Am I to understand that in the name of maintaining the status quo, the gay community should role over, play dead and allow the MAJORITY to impose its tyranny? All in the name of what? the half baked notion that advocating for first class citizenship is anathema to what a “republic” is premised on? Citizens have the right to seek redress for injustice. On the one hand you glorify the civil rights movement and give a half hearted argument as to why many in the African American community are homophobic. Of course no where did you mention the influence of right wing “christian” ministers from black churches speaking out in the most vile rhetoric about the inhumanity of gay people. And quite frankly I am not convinced that it is any different than homophobia in the white community. Your argument that we are co-opting the brand name “civil rights” thereby alienating African Americans is ridiculous. The only thing being co-opted, white or black, is rationality on this and many other issues. The dogma of the right wing who speak in “absolutes” is frightening no matter what the skin color of the audience.

It seems that whenever the issue of gay rights comes up we are told that any demands for justice violate others “religious” freedoms, and the term moral is thrown around as if we are dogs in the street screwing everything we can get our hands on, or now, the inane argument that the struggle for marriage rights is not a matter of civil rights. Why is it not a civil right? The Supreme Court has made 14 rulings over the years on various cases that affirm marriage as a right. Are we to be denied that right because some call us “immoral”? Some found the equality of African Americans to be morally repugnant.
A strong, and at times militant civil rights movement effectively addressed LEGAL inequalities in this country. Should African Americans have stood by and waited for the majority to decide that indeed they were entitled to equality in the eyes of the law? Is this what you are suggesting to the gay community?

Sorry, after three decades of being an openly gay man and having to live with subtle and not so subtle discrimination, I am sick of having to take the back seat to homophobic hate mongers screaming about morality, religion and continuing to relegate us to second class status. As I have said before, sell your “civil unions for all message” to the Tea Party and the loving people at NOM. Let’s see how civilized their reaction to that proposition will be.